We’re interested here in why people believe this female Ford’s charges against male SCOTUS nominee Kavanaugh. Many progressives say Ford’s evidence, even at this late date (I’m editing this on the morning of 25 September) is “credible.”

What could they mean by this word? And what could they mean when they chant “I believe survivors”?

In the old days, credible, a belief word, meant “appearing to merit belief or acceptance”. This word applied to the evidence used to support a conclusion — such as the conclusion “He’s guilty” — and not the conclusion itself, which here are details of the accusation.

It’s clear, back then, that accusers meant their conclusion to be deducible from the evidence (the details of the accusation). So it was always a question of how reliable the evidence was. We examined the evidence, in each part, and verified whether each part was true, false, or in between.

If the evidence was faulty, lacking, false, uncertain, tainted, or otherwise corrupted, it was tossed. The conclusion could then no longer be deduced, because, obviously, the conclusion was deduced from the evidence. This led to the conclusion being set aside (the conclusion could still be true or false, which we could only know with reference to different evidence than the discredited evidence).

That was then. These days, the conclusion is taken to be true because the charge was made or, rather, because of the “seriousness of the charges.” (Remember Anita Hill?) The charge itself is taken as sufficient evidence. The other evidence, the details in the accusation, are incidental, almost beside the point.

This is why you see people still, right now, saying Ford’s accusations are “credible”, even though her evidence has fallen apart (e.g., all the people she said were at her party under oath swore they were not present). They still say “credible” because the main evidence is the accusation itself; those details about who was where when are trivial distractions. It doesn’t matter if the details are true or false.

This new interpretation is everywhere. Global warming is true because of the seriousness of the charges. Incidentals like failed climate models are dismissed. The charge — or theory — is true because of its inherent importance.

I am a woman because I say I am. The biological evidence that I am a male is incidental, and dismissed, because of the seriousness of the charges.

This new definition of credible therefore represents a true Triumph of the Will. Reality itself must bend to our desires. Let me explain that, too.

Substituting fantasy and desire for Reality has, of course, always been with us. But it is only now that it is becoming institutionalized, the default reaction. “The law of the land,” and so forth.

The divide is between Realists and Fantasists. In Ford’s case, the Realists are frustrated Fantasists still believe even though all Ford’s direct evidence has been proved faulty; therefore the conclusion does not follow. “Why can’t they see that?” Realists ask.

The Fantasists do not care about the incidental evidence. The charge is too serious in all its consequences. Therefore the conclusion must be true. “Why can’t the Realists understand this?” they counter. (Some hovering between Reality and Fantasy try to make hay of highly circumstantial evidence, such as that some witnesses reported seeing Kavanaugh drunk before.)

The only sole lone thing that could “destroy” Ford’s conclusion is that if she publicly, forcefully, and loudly declares, “I lied.” The charge will have been removed; therefore, the conclusion no longer follows, even for a Fantasist.

This same battle takes place everywhere the Culture War is fought. This is why it always appears the battle over direct evidence never goes anywhere. It can’t. It’s ultimately a battle of who has True Authority. Nature, and Nature’s God, i.e. Reality, or Man’s Will.

This explains why charges of sexual assault do not (often) work against progressive politicians. Fantasists, which are most progressives, use seriousness of the charges as their main evidence, ignoring, when convenient, the details of the accusation. When a progressive politician is accused, and the charges bear up, the Fantasist fallacy works in the opposite direction.

First there are the ends-justify-the-means crowd, the pure Machiavellians. Liars all. There isn’t any need to explain this. But this group, once the largest, is about even with pure Fantasists. These folks actually believe. The Machiavellian knows he’s lying, but the Fantasist does not. The consequences of losing the progressive politician because of the charge are so serious (and this varies by the person under consideration, of course) that the Fantasist cannot believe the charges against the progressive politician are true, not really true.

Of course, when the politician is of no more use, or is otherwise a liability, the charges against him are treated just like charges against a Realist. Even Bill Clinton is still believed.

Finally “I believe survivors”. Why wouldn’t a “survivor” be believed? A survivor is a person who was almost killed only to be saved by some thing or event. Only kidding: “survivor” means victim of some sort, even where the threat of death was low or non-existent. Skip that.

The only reason not to believe a “survivor” is because it is suspected the “survivor” is lying about being a “survivor”. To issue the blanket statement “I believe survivors” thus discounts any possibility, or rather any interest, in whether the “survivor” is lying (or mistaken). It is to say the consequences of the “survivor’s” charges are too serious for their accusation not to be believed. A “survivor” who lied is not a survivor.

Related

Hang them all as traitors to the Republic. It’s the only way to be sure.
After a fair trial, of course. Fair by their own, current terms – the seriousness of the accusation is all that matters. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Despite having an interest, I am obviously no expert on statistics. However, I am puzzled by a basic calculation that I see reported nowhere. The figures I see are that in about 6% of reported rapes, the claim turns out to be provably false in the sense that it is provable that no rape occurred. Things such as accusing the wrong assailant or being wrong, vague, or self-contradictory in other aspects of the accusation do not count as proving the claim false.

I also see that an estimated 19% of women have been raped, and that about 38% of these women report it. So, with no other information, that yields 19%*38%*6% = about 0.4% of all women are willing to report a rape in cases where it can be proved that no rape occurred. There are likely a lot more cases where no rape occurred than there are cases where it can be proved that no rape occurred, but even at the 0.4% figure that means that of a group of 1000 women there is something like a 98% chance that at least one of them is willing to make a patently false rape claim.

That is, the fact that any claim of rape is very likely to be true doesn’t mean that it is likely that a man is guilty when accused.

This seems to be related to the principle that reconciles that I am very likely to get wet in the rain despite that only a tiny fraction of all the raindrops actually land on me. There are just so many drops that despite taking each one as extremely unlikely to land on me, I still am almost certain to get wet.

So often, it seems that the “only 6% of accusations are provably false” figure is taken as meaning “94% of claims are true” or that there is only a 6% chance that a man has been falsely accused, but neither of these implications seems valid.

The false claim problem isn’t normally so bad for men, since the 4 women out of 1000 or so who are willing to make a false claim will have diverse reasons for selecting their targets, but in the case where the target is highly publicized, it makes the likelihood of even a large number of false claims seem very great.

So somehow, it seems that we need to both presume that women are telling the truth and also presume that men are telling the truth, especially when there are reasons that many women might be tempted to target a particular man.

Two mutually contradictory facts can each be very likely to be true, even though they cannot both be true. I think this is related to the Briggs statements that probabilities reflect our own information about the world rather than being about the world as it is.

estimated 19% of women have been raped, and that about 38% of these women report it
Ever wonder the basis for the 19% and especially the 38% considering it wasn’t reported? How does one count the unknowable?

There is a 90% conviction rate in federal court. According to Wiki

It is commonly assumed that most of the rape cases go unreported; some estimates go up to or above 90%

Dr. Charles P. McDowell, Supervisory Special Agent, Air Force Office of Special investigations, investigated 556 cases of alleged rape, and 27 percent of the women eventually admitted they had lied. Other cases which were questionable were reviewed by three independent investigators. They concluded that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false.

The accusation is NOT rape. It is groping. Allegedly Ms. Ford, when she was 15, went to a kegger, got drunk, a child under the influence, all of her own accord, and was fondled by a groper, allegedly, who just happened to be nominated for the Supreme Court 40 years later, which is when she just happened to remember the incident after having blacked it out for 40 years due to the psychological trauma of it.

What?????

That’s believable? We have to take that kind of in your face crap seriously? Because women, the female gender, are so pathetic and weak that if you squeeze their tit when they are 15 and drunk they will dissolve into a goo of psychological abnormality for the rest of their pathetic lives? Modern women?

Fortunately (or is it unfortunately) I don’t know any real women like that. The real women I know might get drunk once in a while, but they are not pushovers and they don’t take sh*t off men, any men: fathers, husbands, sons, you name him. They bend males to their will. It’s horrible to watch and worse to be subjected to. I’m just saying.

Real women are not pathetic victims. Don’t pretend that you are one, because I know the truth.

This analysis omits something — unstated evidence. Briggs often cites it as part of the equation in his explanations about calculating probability. It’s applicable here. The I-Believe women who stand on mere accusation are factoring in all of their unwanted experiences with men as unstated evidence. To them those memories and fears outweigh specific demonstrable facts. We can’t see it, but to them it’s the major part of the calculation. It’s not pure Fantasist (delusional) thinking. It’s typical human System I thinking (see Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow for details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow) where approximate substitutes for accurate. Emotion is the driver, not rational deduction. It may not be correct in terms of justice in specific cases such as this one, but it certainly is not delusional.

Baker is on the right track, but follows the wrong scent in looking for the culpable parties, as well as their strategy and tactics. Which leads to faulty conclusions about the effects today (mostly focusing on overt “Communists,” instead of the belief system of the Democrat party–PC-Progressivism).

See the three part series on Covert Influence against Normal-America that I wrote in 2010 for Breitbart.

Wouldn´t ‘credible’ means in this case that, because teenagers occasionally grope, Kavanaugh could have groped Ford? Compared to Kavanaugh abducting Ford in his Flying Saucer, which is something teenagers are known not to do?

Certain Leftist women all over the Western World are pushing for the “its true if a woman says so” narrative. Its good to see important people pushing back against that, if only because of “equality”.

Your claim, that part of her accusation is faulty, is faulty is faulty itself.

It is easy to deny when you are not under oath, and when a lie bares no consequences. Much harder to do under oath to the FBI and where a lie has consequences.

At this moment, Dr Blasey-Ford is requesting a FBI investigation to which there are consequences to lying. Kavanaugh refuses to push for the involvement of the FBI.

Dr Blasey-Ford had/has psychological consequences from what happened to her in high enough that she mentioned and described the event to a psychologist years before Kavanaugh was nominated to SCOTUS.

After she sent the letter last July she got a lawyer and successfully passed a lie detector. Although they have no validity in court they are often used by the intelligence agencies and by the police to clear individual of involvement in a crime. Kavanaugh is not raising his hand to pass one.

Many Republican use the argument that they don’t know Kavanaugh that way. That because he had a stellar reputation he could not have done this, etc. The exact same argument used with serial killer where people around them can’t believe they could be guilty. Or that for a long time catholic priest could do no wrong, until it became evident that many were pervert protected by the Church.

There are numerous contemporaneous evidence that Kavanaugh was a drunk in high school, starting with is own yearbook mentions (it would be great to read the comment people left in is yearbook). There is also his own comment that what happened at is prep school stayed at is prep school stayed at is prep school and that it was a good thing.

‘The only sole lone thing that could “destroy” Ford’s conclusion is that if she publicly, forcefully, and loudly declares, “I lied.” The charge will have been removed; therefore, the conclusion no longer follows, even for a Fantasist.’

Nonsense. Clearly if she were to ever say “I lied” that would merely be proof of the evil Patriarchy(TM) and its ability to force her to recant in order to get its Roe-v-Wade-abolishing Literally Hitler onto the Supreme Court so he can make baby mur- er, I mean wymyn’s healthcare – illegal, then let the Election-Stealer-in-Chief literally genocide every non-white in America. Duh.

Maybe somebody can help me. These women keep saying they are survivors. Now, I didn’t know that rape was lethal. Does anybody know where I can find some statistics on how many women die of rape? I can’t find any.

I missed this “she got a lawyer and successfully passed a lie detector.”
Her polygraph examination consisted of two questions, are you lying and did you make anything up. Now that is hilarious. I used to work for NSA and to do that work you needed a TSSI and a poly. One guy I knew lost his job because he couldn’t pass the poly. This was a lifestyle poly where you are asked questions like “do you drink to excess?” or “do you like little boys?”. The poly starts with a number of innocuous questions to establish a baseline before they start asking the personal questions. It doesn’t just consist of two questions.

Despite the fact that the FBI wouldn’t have jurisdiction, what exactly would they investigate? Ford can’t seem to remember any details like where and when and apparently can’t recall who was present (except that it MUST have been Kavanough).

Ford can’t remember the year the incident happened, she can’t remember how she got to the house party, or how she got home. She told no one about it at the time and the issue came to the forefront during a couples therapy session six years ago. Her therapist’s notes never mention Kavanaugh and actually mention four boys involved, although she says there were only two.

FBI investigation? Yeah, sure. The FBI would know all of those missing details.

Kavanaugh refuses to push for the involvement of the FBI.

The Canadian terrorist is at it again. He clearly made terrorists threats. I know because I remembered it in my therapy sessions. Notice he hasn’t called upon the FBI to clear his name. That proves it. Definitely guilty.

—
Ford has had ample chances to come forward and testify but refuses to do so. Even claimed she is claustrophobic and can’t fly but, she has visited her relatives on the East Coast. Did she drive? Wouldn’t that also be claustrophobic? She has made her accusation but now is clearly stalling.

Wanna take bets on her showing up on Thursday?

As the Daily Wire has pointed out

Not a single corroborating witness has come forward to support these wild claims [including Swetnick’s] that somehow escaped six FBI background checks.

Good article there Briggs! There wouldn’t be a point in having a court system with a rule of law and rational ways to gain and evaluate evidence if any serious accusation can taken as “fact” without sufficient warrant.

Despite the fact that the FBI wouldn’t have jurisdiction, what exactly would they investigate? Ford can’t seem to remember any details like where and when and apparently can’t recall who was present (except that it MUST have been Kavanough).

Ford can’t remember the year the incident happened, she can’t remember how she got to the house party, or how she got home. She told no one about it at the time and the issue came to the forefront during a couples therapy session six years ago. Her therapist’s notes never mention Kavanaugh and actually mention four boys involved, although she says there were only two.

FBI investigation? Yeah, sure. The FBI would know all of those missing details.

Kavanaugh refuses to push for the involvement of the FBI.

The Canadian terrorist is at it again. He clearly made terrorists threats. I know because I remembered it in my therapy sessions. Notice he hasn’t called upon the FBI to clear his name. That proves it. Definitely guilty.

—
Ford has had ample chances to come forward and testify but refuses to do so. Even claimed she is claustrophobic and can’t fly but, she has visited her relatives on the East Coast. Did she drive? Wouldn’t that also be claustrophobic? She has made her accusation but now is clearly stalling.

Wanna take bets on her showing up on Thursday?

As the Daily Wire has pointed out

Not a single corroborating witness has come forward to support these wild claims [including Swetnick’s] that somehow escaped six FBI background checks.

BECAUSE an increasing number/proportion (both) of people in society are suffering from mental illnesses. Part of the basis for belief in the case of the wild and wildly unsubstantiated accusations directed at the SCOTUS nominee comes from EMOTIONAL REASONING:

Emotional reasoning is a cognitive process by which a person concludes that his/her emotional reaction proves something is true, regardless of the observed evidence.

Anorexics are an example — they “feel” fat and ignore all objective evidence to the contrary and starve themselves, sometimes literally to death. Similarly, many believe the SCOTUS nominee’s accuser because the story invokes a feeling of revulsion in imaging the alleged events, and that feeling serves as a basis for belief. It’s irrational, but unfortunately all too common to varying degrees. A LOT of people base their beliefs/ascribe credibility based on how they feel about it.

Part of this is hard-wired into humans — when we recall someone we recently met, much of our attitude toward them is based on feelings. As the saying goes, ‘they may not remember what you said, but they’ll always remember how you made them feel.’ Comedians and successful paid lecturers understand this — and the former know few remember the jokes and the latter almost without exception pepper their presentations with feel-good anecdotes, quotes and jokes that really add next-to-nothing to the core message of their lectures … but serve to create persistent memories of vague good feelings in the audience that gets them to hire them back again & again.

Objective analytical evaluation has no relevance when dealing with someone suffering from the emotional reasoning mental defect. Again, anorexics are an extreme example — no matter how low the scale readings, and how small the evidence of the tape measure around the waist, they believe they’re obese because they feel that way.

Similarly, other people may claim to believe the accuser if by doing so it results in a desired outcome (such as getting a disliked nominee removed from contention). These people are similarly immune to objective analysis because they are unprincipled opportunistic liars willfully and selfishly exploiting the situation for ulterior motives — and they are very very good at knowingly manipulating/stoking the emotional reasoning others subconsciously use.

In the specific case a third broad category includes those that recognize that abuse victims are routinely, if not almost always, in a ‘he said/she said’ situation where there is no evidence and the mere fact of coming forward with all the attendant unpleasantness itself indicates credibility (i.e., if it weren’t true, they wouldn’t go thru the grief of coming forward). Couple that with emotional reasoning (the various afflictions & rationale are not mutually exclusive) and the result is very committed and credulous activists who genuinely believe and support the accuser(s).

Some decades ago there was almost a fad where people were learning, via highly suggestive therapy, that their phobias [or whatever] were seeded in their very young youth by the trauma of being subjected to Satanic rituals so horrific they’d blotted them out of their conscious memory (amnesia). Of course enough of that was soundly refuted to cast into doubt ALL such reports for which no evidence exists.

With the primary accuser of the SCOTUS nominee we observe something very similar — a painful trauma alleged to have happened is based on what was extracted by who-knows-what-kind-of-psychotherapy. Based on similar patterns I’d be inclined to believe the accuser/patient actually does “recollect” memories of a surprisingly ineffectual forceful romantic interlude/rape. But consider that encounter: The ‘attacker’ is described as so fumbling drunk he could not consummate the basic attack, much less be capable of following thru further. One has to wonder how or why such an encounter could be so traumatic as to prompt the psychological defense of total suppression, and that for decades. Routinely young girls who experience much worse never forget the event. This suggests the “recollection” is a therapist-coached fantasy much akin to those old reports of Satanic ritual abuse that never really happened. However, because these can feel so believable to the accuser, the accuser will tend to come across as perfectly sincere. And because people can sense sincerity this helps make the accuser that much more compelling and believable.

Did the event happen?
If not, does the above explain what’s driving this?
Etc.?
We may never know for sure; and, even the accuser might not know for sure.

All things taken together there’s no doubt there’s ample ‘reasonable doubt.’

Dr. Ford’s attorneys have refused to release any of Dr. Ford’s therapist’s notes to the Senate committee claiming that they are medical records and are therefore private — even though those same “private” notes were provided to The Washington Post.

The documents provided do not list who paid for the polygraph and give no explanation as to why Dr. Ford subjected herself to the test if she had no intention of coming forward publicly with her allegations.

I can understand why the libs and the Dems are hopping mad at Judge Kavanaugh – he only assaulted very liberal woman who now hate Trump. Not only is he an abusive misogynist, he’s a prejudiced abusive misogynist!

“Despite the fact that the FBI wouldn’t have jurisdiction, what exactly would they investigate?”

It is exactly in the purview of the FBI to investigate such allegations in respect to a background check. This is exactly what happened in the Anita Hill case.

“The Canadian terrorist is at it again. He clearly made terrorists threats. I know because I remembered it in my therapy sessions. Notice he hasn’t called upon the FBI to clear his name. That proves it. Definitely guilty”

Who says that I refuse to an investigation of the FBI. In my line of work, it is required that I pass a background every few years. Especially regarding sexual behaviour toward adolescents.

What is most likely to be remembered by an individual. The name of the person who attempted to rape her, or the date and place where it happened.

What I believe is what Kavanaugh said when he was a teenager in the yearbook and what he recently said himself about is conduct at his prep school.

There are at least 3 witnesses at this moment. The second woman as people corroborating her claim, so his for the third.

I have been groped around 1990-1991 by a man that was in a position of power and member of the clergy. It happened once and he never got close again to me. I remember how I felt and why I did not speak to anyone about it for years. I can understand how these women felt and their case was a lot more serious then what happened to me.

“The onetime girlfriend of Mark Judge, who is alleged by Christine Blasey Ford to have been present while Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the 1980s, has emerged as a pivotal if hidden figure in this whole affair — and now she’s prepared to speak to the FBI and the Judiciary Committee about what she knows, according to a letter from her lawyer that I’ve obtained.”

It is exactly in the purview of the FBI to investigate such allegations in respect to a background check. This is exactly what happened in the Anita Hill case.

1) Anita Hill accursed Clarence Thomas, her supervisor at the United States Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, of sexual harassment.

A federal matter.
The FBI doesn’t investigate state crimes unless requested by the state authorities.
So, no, they don’t have jurisdiction.

2) Why isn’t she demanding an investigation by the State of Maryland or Montgomery County
both of which have proper jurisdiction? Maybe afraid of being charged with filing a false police report?

3) If the FBI was incompetent to uncover this in six background investigation why are they suddenly competent to conduct a seventh? If they are competent, what new information would they have ?

Who says that I refuse to an investigation of the FBI. In my line of work, it is required that I pass a background every few years. Especially regarding sexual behaviour toward adolescents

OK, maybe they ARE incompetent. How else could they have missed your predatory deviance? I’m amazed they are doing background checks on Canadians, though. Probably just for the money. I notice you still haven’t called upon them to clear your name with this new allegation implying their previous checks should have been sufficient. Say, isn’t that what Kavanaugh might also be thinking?

What is most likely to be remembered by an individual. The name of the person who attempted to rape her, or the date and place where it happened.

We only have the name remembered rather recently. Ford can’t recall the year of occurrence let alone the date and can’t name the place, how she got there and how she got home. Her accounts of who was present vary. There has been no corroboration. BTW: she said she was groped and only feared it would lead to rape. Not the same thing as attempted rape. And because she was felt up she now panics in an airplane. Really?

She once made a trip to Hawaii for a conference. I wonder how she got there.

I have been groped around 1990-1991
I guess you panic in airplanes too? Messed up your time sense as well. It was so traumatic you can’t remember the year? Funny, I can remember the exact date, time and intersection of a near fatal car accident I was in. But I guess that’s nowhere near as traumatic compared to being groped.

I remember how I felt and why I did not speak to anyone about it for years.
Well, you’re a delicate flower, Poor Thing. I would have punched him and/or kicked him in a place that particularly hurts.

Avanati’s client, Julie Swetnick, is demonstrating what a circus this is. It’s like watching late night for-TV-onl ads. But WAIT! There’s MORE!

She graduated in 1980 and was and adult attending college but, for whatever reason, hung around with high school partiers. There were public gang rapes at these events according to her but she went to ten of them until she herself was raped. None of this was reported to the police and none of it surfaced during six background checks.

The onetime girlfriend of Mark Judge, … she’s prepared to speak to the FBI and the Judiciary Committee about what she knows, according to a letter from her lawyer that I’ve obtained.

Which is what exactly?
Quoting from the Silly Canadian Goose’s WAPO link:

Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman.

Which is hearsay.

The New Yorker piece quotes Rasor saying Judge confessed to a similar episode, but without implicating Kavanaugh in it.

and

In recounting this particular episode to the New Yorker, Rasor did not name Kavanaugh.

The whole point in all of this is to sidetrack the vote.
Democrats should be ashamed.
Apparently, they didn’t learn the most important lesson from their Nuclear Option in the Senate: namely, what goes around comes around.

1) Kavanaugh is not accused of a crime. So the FBI investigation into the matter would be in respect of a background check, not a matter of criminal law.

The matter in question is one of character which this Kavanaugh lack. I understand that you have an orgasm seeing the overthrow of Roe v Wade so near. But the guy is a liar. He has now got caught perjuring himself at least twice, which should be disqualifying in itself, if it was not for the idiotic direction that the GOP is heading.

2) She is appearing tomorrow before congress which has or suppose to have harsher rule on perjury. The same would go with lying to the FBI.

BTW, the statute of limitation for a misdemeanor is one year from the event. She doesn’t claim rape.

3) They may not have uncovered these event because they didn’t talk to the right persons. With now the four cases that came out they would have several people that they could now interview and to whom they never talk. Also these events doesn’t mean the guy cannot have a life and work. But a SCOTUS appointment is not right to anyone and requires great judgement, which this guy lack.

FBI don’t do background check in Canada, local police do though. FBI might do background checks for people asking fort the Nexus card that allow the fast lane at the border.

“We only have the name remembered rather recently. Ford can’t recall the year of occurrence let alone the date and can’t name the place, how she got there and how she got home.”

You are very confused, or believe liars. Oh wait, we have a Foxnews fan here. Of course, Ailes didn’t abuse an women who worked for him and neither O’reilly.

Dr Blasey-Ford mentioned Kavanaugh’s name several time over the years, even before he was ever close to be nominated to SCOTUS. She knows where and when the event happened.

”But I guess that’s nowhere near as traumatic compared to being groped.”

Did I say it was dramatic. It happened when I was destroyed by years of bullying, that cause two of my friends to suicide. My confidence wasn’t then what it is now, and yes today my reaction would be much different. But an event like mine which is very minor, and remembering how I felt about it, help me understand how women can feel in similar situation that are much more traumatizing.

Yes he is.
Ford claims that Kavanaugh tried to rape her at a high school party.

Swetnick claims that as an adult in college, she attended high school parties with minors where alcohol was being consumed and where gang rapes were taking place.

Rape might not be a crime in Canada but it is a crime in Maryland without statute of limitations.

Making alcohol available to minors is also a crime in Maryland though not a felony.

Oddly, Swetnick is confessing to complicity in both by being an accessory after the fact since she not only claims to have attended numerous partues where these occurred but also never reported them to the police.

FBI don’t do background check in Canada
I thought so but you brought them up with Who says that I refuse to an investigation of the FBI. In my line of work, it is required that I pass a background every few years.

You are quite prone to non sequiturs. One of the reasons you don’t make any sense.

Did I say it was dramatic. It happened when I was destroyed by years of bullying
No. You said it was traumatic. And so does the second sentence quoted here. Hard to be destroyed by something non-traumatic unless you mean something like a stroke. Happy experiences never destroy. Your English seems good enough to understand a dictionary definition. Use one.

They may not have uncovered these event because they didn’t talk to the right persons.
According to scotusblog, Kavanaugh has accumulated an extensive record in cases implicating national security. That would require a Top Secret clearance. I had one myself. The process takes about a year and costs a lot. It leaves little ground unturned. And that’s just one of the background checks he underwent. There were five others. Besides,

But Tuesday night, Ford’s lawyer asked for an FBI investigation into the matter before Ford would talk to the committee.

“Dr. Ford’s request is in reverse order,” Michael J. Clark, a former 22-year FBI agent, told The Daily Signal. “If she does not come forward for a Senate hearing, the Senate is chasing its tail.”

“We only have the name remembered rather recently. Ford can’t recall the year of occurrence let alone the date and can’t name the place, how she got there and how she got home.”

“Apparently, they didn’t learn the most important lesson from their Nuclear Option in the Senate: namely, what goes around comes around.”

What democrat didn’t learn is that they should have done away entirely with the filibuster, removing any leverage the Republican had in the Senate. Republican use the filibuster rule 632 times during Obama’s presidency.

Democrat could have done a lot more if it wasn’t for the filibuster rule which could have help keeping the Senate longer.

It is very rich to hear trump complain about obstruction. It seems Dems learnt it from the Reps.

BTW, during the Bush year I would have voted Reps, now it wouldn’t be a remote possibility.

“Making alcohol available to minors is also a crime in Maryland though not a felony.”

It seems that for rich white kids this rule doesn’t apply.

And Blasey-Ford is not accusing him of rape.

Thanks to Kavanaugh’s calendar we now know that there at least one week-end were the assault was possible. And also, I thinking it is Swetnick, is proven correct about her beach week mention. Hard if she didn’t know him.

“You are quite prone to non sequiturs. One of the reasons you don’t make any sense.”

Would you prefer writing in French instead?

You now know that your source of information is incorrect, or lies:

1) she testified:

2) She has a valid explanation of plane travel mostly or all work related and never to Australia.
She remember where, when (the exact date could be found if it was looked for), how, who.

Sylvain,
What is he supposed to have done that is so terrible? Groped someone at a party?
On Ford:
She’s not being true to herself. The media are never true to anyone.
…
On victims vs bullies:
Someone who has a crime committed against them or their property is called a victim. Burglary, car theft, mugging, pick pocketing, hacking, internet spying.

No need to resort to psychobabble on a matter of brute fact.
An innocent man accused of raping a woman is a victim, too. It is every bit as sad as the woman who IS raped, outside of any permanent physical injury. Immune cells in the brain remain present and can switch on for up to twenty five years after trauma. I don’t think Ford’s case counts as any kind of trauma. Trauma, literally, changes you. For the better, in the end, hopefully.

The media and the left always go for the same type of characters. Those who speak freely. Even our very own Aled Jones has been accused of some ancient sexual mistake which sounded like a mild encounter, to me.

What is cliched and popular talk presently, amongst amateur armchair physiologists and even professionals, is talk of “the victim mentality”, which is also a load of falsehood excuse for bad behaviour of perpetrators, real ones.

People are strong or weak or somewhere in between. There is no control over the internal reaction to something if there is a genuine traumatic memory of something real. It is also the language of the bully to blame the victim for having a ‘victim mentality’. Rubbish talk, too.

If you’ve been raped or physically attacked, you were a victim.
I was a victim, not through choice. Nor am I a survivor, just a person who thought quickly when the moment required. To say it isn’t traumatic is to say something inaccurate. To say any given traumatic event will produce a given predicted outcome is also false and simplistic. This is Inconvenient for psychobabblers. Trauma is trauma, whatever part of the anatomy is affected.

To be grabbed by some man is something that only happens when he suspects that no other man is watching because he knows another man would do something about it. A .7 ratio is not just a disadvantage for buying clothes, “just saying”.

It’s not the way to a girl’s heart, to grab for a grope. Any man who is worth knowing, understands this. It might be upsetting if you thought the man had more nouse, more brains. Apparently brains aren’t necessary, it’s a boy thing.

For a man to be falsely accused of rape is Very sad. Even sadder because if they admit they’re sad then they’ll be called a victim! More physchobabbling.

Why is the only other professed woman here speaking about feeding crocodiles?
Weird, just weird.
Why does Sylvain think this case isn’t some overblown party affair?

“You are quite prone to non sequiturs. One of the reasons you don’t make any sense.”
Would you prefer writing in French instead?
Yet another example which was completely unnecessary but thanks anyway.

It seems that for rich white kids this rule doesn’t apply.
One of the things in which Lefties are adept is playing the race card even when it wasn’t dealt let alone being in the deck. What do you do? Hide it up your sleeve?

She has a valid explanation of plane travel mostly or all work related and never to Australia.
One of the claimed reasons for delaying testifying was her fear of flying to DC from California. Turns out she was in Rehobeth Beach, DE (a two hour drive from DC) since August. The claimed reason was a lie.

Turns out she flew a lot.
Never to Australia? Probably not to North Korea either. So what?

She remember where, when (the exact date could be found if it was looked for), how, who.
Did she now? Then you won’t have any trouble telling us those details.

The one thing that became crystal clear Thursday is that there is no corroborating evidence of Ford’s allegation. We learned nothing beyond what was outlined in her letter. Every witness she named has said they don’t remember any of her allegation occurring.

Dailynews is fake news
Which is why I didn’t quote them whoever they are. If, however, you meant what most of the media distribute is fake then you won’t get any argument from me.

“In the summer of 1982, like most summers, I spent most every day at the Columbia Country Club in Chevy Chase, Maryland, swimming and practising diving.

One evening that summer, after a day of diving at the club, I attended a small gathering at a house in the Bethesda area. There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending.’’

Let’s see the entry from July 1, 1982, from Kavanaugh’s calendar.

“In that July 1 entry, Kavanaugh notes plans to go to “Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J. Bernie and … Squi.” “Skis” is short for “brewskies,” or beer.”

Ford mentioned that Kavanaugh was heavily drunk when she arrived and that the gathering was in the middle of the week. All the boy she mentioned were present. She also stated that she could find the exact date with the help of the FBI.

Being afraid of something doesn’t mean you never face your fears but you will avoid them whenever possible. And she did reluctantly fly for the hearing.

Do you remember every party you went to when you were a kid. I don’t and I’ve never been drunk and I didn’t go to much of them. Kavanaugh and his boys seam to have had a lot of them.

If you get sexually assaulted you would certainly remember it a lot more.

There are ever more corroborating evidence to Ford.

1- His Calendar (July 1 entry)
2- His quote from his yearbook (ex.: Renata alumni, 100 kegs)
3- The comment in his yearbook would be very telling (though he refused to share his personal yearbook) (probably lost or destroyed it by now).
4- His comment about what happened to Georgetown prep stayed at Georgetown prep.
5- His refusal to have the FBI investigate
6- His refusal to pass a polygraph has unreliable (contrary to a ruling where he said they were)
7- His refusal to answer the vast majority of questions
8- Lying about the meaning of Devil’s triangle as a drinking game. (Remember he is under oath and lied) (Graham impeached Clinton for less)

There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending
All of whom have denied it in writing and under risk of felony. Even it the FBI did question them, they’d run the risk of perjury if their story changes. So the FBI won’t discover anything not already known. A waste of time.

The FBI is now conducting a Supplementary Investigation. The only thing they will be able to do is interview the witnesses who deny being with Ford. Guess what they’re going to report.

Ford mentioned that Kavanaugh was heavily drunk when she arrived and that the gathering was in the middle of the week.
But not how she got there or how she left. Pretty selective memory. People tend to fill in details. This sounds like fill -in because, well, he just had to be.

She also stated that she could find the exact date with the help of the FBI.
Yeah, how? If she can’t remember when then how can the FBI know? She didn’t file a police report. She didn’t tell anyone for years. There won’t be a paper trail after 35 years. What exactly can the FBI do to get this date?

The closest we get is “one evening that summer” – a stretch of 90 days if confined to actual summer vs. school vacation. She can’t even narrow it down to the month.

Speaking of filing a report, she has yet to file one with the appropriate police departments. Interesting.

Do you remember every party you went to when you were a kid. I don’t and I’ve never been drunk and I didn’t go to much of them. Kavanaugh and his boys seam to have had a lot of them.
She’s not being asked about “every party”. She is being asked to provide specific details about a specific one. One which was “burned into her memory”. Strange that many of those “burned in” details have been forgotten.

Some of her testimony came from therapy sessions. It’s well known that memories can get manufactured. So it is important to verify her account.

She wouldn’t allow her therapist’s notes to be presented to the committee (citing “privacy” yet somehow the WaPo got them — from her, no less). Gotta wonder what she’s hiding. Bet they don’t agree with her testimony before the committee. She “can’t remember” whether she gave them to the WaPo in writing or not. That was only weeks ago and yet we are asked to believe she vividly remembers events from a third of a century ago.

Her testimony is uncorroborated and likely never will be corroborated.

Being afraid of something doesn’t mean you never face your fears but you will avoid them whenever possible. And she did reluctantly fly for the hearing.
But she lied about it when asked to come to DC to testify. The committee wanted to send someone to California to get her testimony so she wouldn’t have to fly. Turns out, she was on the East Coast, specifically, Rehobeth Beach, DE. She didn’t fly to DC from California for the hearing. She came from Delaware where she has been staying since the beginning of August.

Reps claimed the leak was from her which she denied. But never said that it was dr Ford faults.
No.
1) They asked her if it came from her or her staff . She said “No”
2) They asked her if she questioned her staff about the leak. She initially said “No” but suddenly remembered having done so when one of her staffers said she did. Weird.
3) But then

Continuing to be pressed, Feinstein said it was probably Ford who was responsible for the leak since she had told some of her friends.

Feinstein says most likely leak of Ford’s letter was from “her friends.”

Cornyn points out her friends didn’t have the letter.

Feinstein says friends may have spread story (not letter) by word of mouth.

Yes, she blamed Ford for the leak because Ford told her friends and somehow Ford’s friends just happened to be in contact with reporters and The Intercept (which actually had a copy of the letter). She either leaked it herself or someone on her staff did. She strangely couldn’t recall confronting her staff about it until “reminded”.

The real purpose behind all of this is to delay until the Democrats have control. I think this is going to backfire on them. They also have opened up a can of worms where any nomination can be permanently destroyed by mere uncorroborated allegation. The Republicans have been treating this with kid gloves. It’s about time they got some balls and tool off the gloves.

This isn’t a whodunit ala Sherlock Holmes. The jackalopes had all of Kavanaugh’s materials before the radfem testified. He was set up. The radfem was a tool. She is not a four-year-old, although you wouldn’t know that from her whimpering baby talk tone and vocabulary. She is an ABORTIONIST.

All the radlefties are ABORTIONISTS. This is all about abortion: aborting innocent babies, aborting the Constitution, aborting the rule of law, aborting America. Murder murder murder. They can’t enough of it. I’m a little surprised they weren’t waving their baby gutting knives and chanting “No more profits, no more profits.”

”But not which house or whose.
There are a lot of houses in Bethesda.
A place 6-8 miles from hers.
Also about 2-3 miles from the club.”

Giving driving lessons to 16 years old, I can assure you that you don’t need to get far from their home for them to get lost. Not many 15 year old would be able to trace back their step to a house party of someone they barely know, the next day or week, let alone 36 years later.

”She can’t remember how she got there or how she got home. She didn’t walk yet can’t recall who brought her to the party or who got her home.”

These are not related to the event itself, no-one remembers everything, well maybe 5-6 people on the planet . Even more for what happened after the trauma and that she was able to escape to safety.

Even though I have a great memory I can’t remember how I learned to drive a manual car, my father doesn’t remember teaching me, and I don’t remember him teaching me. But I remember learning about the clutch in my motorcycle class. Yet this was years after I was driving cars.

I remember my driving instructor, when we went to Montreal, his name, what kind of car we were driving and many other thing but I don’t remember how I learnt driving with a clutch.

The FBI investigation could easily discover the date and at which house the event happen.

“All of whom have denied it in writing and under risk of felony.”

They said they didn’t remember the specific night. They did not say it is impossible it happened.

“Even it the FBI did question them, they’d run the risk of perjury if their story changes. So the FBI won’t discover anything not already known. A waste of time.”

“THE FACTS: The witness statements in question do not corroborate Ford’s allegations, but they also do not exonerate Kavanaugh. They leave open the possibility that people at the small gathering forgot about it or were not in position to witness the assault.”

Fill-in would have been to tell thing she did not remember. She could have said she took a taxi, bus, bike or anything else. Instead she did not fill in her memory gaps and only stated what she does remember.

“Yeah, how? If she can’t remember when then how can the FBI know? She didn’t file a police report. She didn’t tell anyone for years. There won’t be a paper trail after 35 years. What exactly can the FBI do to get this date?”

For Judge working at Safeway they could check is tax filling, which might still be available, or maybe he kept is pay stub, I have mine for since I started to work.

Judge went trough a 12 step program. Which include:

“Made a list of persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.”

It is probable that Judge didn’t want to testify to not be place in a position to hurt his friend. He has now stated that he would cooperate with the investigation so did the others. The exact when and where should be found by the end of the week.

There is the Kavanaugh’s calendar, which demonstrate a possible moment for the gathering.

“Speaking of filing a report, she has yet to file one with the appropriate police departments. Interesting.”

What would it change at this time? She testified under oath Before congress.

“Some of her testimony came from therapy sessions. It’s well known that memories can get manufactured. So it is important to verify her account.”

It is important to verify her account which it was why the FBI investigation would have been great before the hearing. Better than her note would have been to subpeona her therapist.

”Her testimony is uncorroborated and likely never will be corroborated.”

Except Kavanaugh lied about what expression in is yearbook mean. And we would have to believe that he was virgin long after high school.
——————————————————-
That her friends talk to reporter or a friend of a friend did doesn’t mean that Feinstein put the blame on Ford but on the one who talk to reporter.

”Her testimony is uncorroborated and likely never will be corroborated.”
Except Kavanaugh lied about what expression in is yearbook mean.
Did he? Prove it. Even if he did, so what? It wouldn’t corroborate Ford and that’s the whole point.

”She can’t remember how she got there or how she got home. She didn’t walk yet can’t recall who brought her to the party or who got her home.”
These are not related to the event itself, no-one remembers everything
About the only thing she remembers is Kavanugh’s name. She can’t seem to supply any verifiable facts. If she manufactured this during a therapy session (say, under hypnosis) she would also be short on details. That she can’t remember any of them is a red flag.

“Speaking of filing a report, she has yet to file one with the appropriate police departments.”
What would it change at this time? She testified under oath Before congress.
Goes to credibility. Thought she wanted justice. Apparently, her purpose was only to derail the nomination. Tell everybody but the people who could actually do something? What was her reason for sending it? Her letter was meant to be innuendo only? The answer seems to be a resounding YES!

It is probable that Judge didn’t want to testify to not be place in a position to hurt his friend.
Except that he DID testify in writing and under the force of perjury.

For Judge working at Safeway [the FBI] could check is tax filling, which might still be available, or maybe he kept is pay stub, I have mine for since I started to work.
Why stop there? They can look at his school grades, too. How about his performance in school sports? What would anyone learn from these? How would they help?

It is important to verify her account which it was why the FBI investigation would have been great before the hearing.
The one verifiable thing she did give were the names of witnesses who don’t corroborate her. The rest is unverifiable. Outside of one of the so-called witnesses changing their story, there’s nothing for an FBI investigation to find. Since any story change would entail the risk of perjury, the FBI isn’t going to get one. A total waste of time.

THE FACTS: The witness statements in question do not corroborate Ford’s allegations, but they also do not exonerate Kavanaugh. They leave open the possibility that people at the small gathering forgot about it or were not in position to witness the assault.
Except that Judge unequivocally said (quoting from your link): “never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.” That’s not the same as “can’t remember Brett acting in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

At least now we now where your ideas come from.Never underestimate the stupidity of a NYT reporter or their readers.

As far as remembering, they would say the same thing if it never happened.

Again, the point is that they don’t backup what Ford has said. She wasn’t corroborated.

Judge went trough a 12 step program.
You really have trouble with logic, don’t you?

Better than her note would have been to subpoena her therapist.
They didn’t — just to bend over backwards to accommodate her wishes. If they hadn’t, you would be calling them insensitive old white men. A no-win situation — the plan all along.

Fairness dictates that the charges have corroboration before they can be deemed believable and accurate. The committee should have been far more forceful in demanding verifiable facts instead of pussyfooting around Ford’s feelings.

What happened in the committee is a disgrace. Kavanaugh is being forced to defend himself against baseless, unverifiable claims. Claims that never should have seen the light of day. On top of that, his defense is being used as evidence against him! To quote one Democrat before Thursday’s inquisition: “Kavanaugh CAN’T clear his name.”

If the democrats were really interested in fairness and getting to the bottom of this, they should have said so during the confirmation hearing itself when they first learned about it and where it could have been handled more thoroughly and privately. Instead they chose to drag it out in public as a delaying tactic. Ford is their pawn. They don’t give a damn about her. They sacrificed her in an attempt to win the game.

Booker seemed to know what was going to happen in advance. He made a comment to Showtime’s “The Circus” saying “This is not done until the last vote is cast, and I’ll tell you right now, a lot more can come out. You never know.”. How prescient.

The Republicans sadly seem eager for them to succeed. Pathetic. The door is now open for a never ending stream of baseless allegations which will take until doomsday to follow up. The Democrats have opened Pandora’s Box. The only solace is what goes around, comes around. Someday all of this will come back to haunt them. The only way to stop it is to say “Enough!” and vote.

Irony indeed that he shows more respect for a country’s symbol than spoiled rich ids who disrespect theirs just to signal their wokeness. They reject the very country and ideals that allowed them to become spoiled brats.

Sylvain,
You dwell in the quagmire of gossip and intrigue and In fever swamps of conspiracy.
Start with, and stick with, what you know for sure. That’s all you have.

You are jumping the gun. Judge Kavanaugh is being mistreated publicly. Reason? political. A man is innocent until proven guilty. A crime has to be committed for this to obtain. A trial by media is no trial. We have public galleries, small ones, but no cameras or media are permitted and the tiniest of infringements will make a case null and void. This is because the legal system recognises that politics and salacious gossip have no place in a law court.

People don’t care about what happened. They just want to make sure they throw enough mud that some might stick. It is a tabloid media carry on. The case would never be brought to court in England by the Crown prosecution service. (Yew tree circus aside.)

There seems to be a hysterical or neurotic lack of sobriety about dealing with cases involving people in the public eye. It is sad for everyone involved. Nobody wins if justice is a matter of gossip.

Sylvain:
You never answer easy questions. You always switch to chat about details, as if the claim has any validity in the first place. This is a trick so common on the internet in all kinds of discussion hot topic or cold.
…
What did he do that is so terrible? In one sentence, if you can.

Dav, yes, some of those who would sell their country and their heritage, down the river, appear to be from rich backgrounds. Particularly I noticed those who had made it over to France to visit the migrant encampments. Most are just ‘rent a mob’ with social media ‘friends’ and would be up for a march any time any day, any cause. Zombies, in other words.
Tommy Robinson has had fun interviewing many of them.
Don’t know where these people live though. Never met any.
It is the females on the left wing that are always given the microphone on TV.

“Did he? Prove it. Even if he did, so what? It wouldn’t corroborate Ford and that’s the whole point.”

Devil’s triangle: Other than people who went to school with him and said he lied. It would be nice to have them under oath. Though, to say so to FBI would be good enough. Kavanaugh was also unable to explain how the drinking game was played.

Why lie on something that is inconsequential other than to make yourself look good. He claimed that he was a virgin, that he was Holly’er than though. His yearbook doesn’t support his claim, the same goes with is classmates.

“About the only thing she remembers is Kavanugh’s name. She can’t seem to supply any verifiable facts. If she manufactured this during a therapy session (say, under hypnosis) she would also be short on details. That she can’t remember any of them is a red flag.”

She does remember a lot in between actually, a lot more than Kavanaugh’s name, and who was at the house, etc.

Why didn’t GOP asked her about hypnosis. Your claim, that really come from Fox’s Jeanine Pirro is merit-less and misunderstand how hypnosis works and what kind of memory can be retrieve that way. In her case, it was not necessary since she always remembered those details. She just didn’t speak of it to anyone for years. Hypnosis could have been necessary if she had forgotten a part of her life, if she had had no knowledge of being raped or a murder.

“Goes to credibility….”

Not wanting to send someone to jail doesn’t mean you want him on the Supreme Court.

“Again, the point is that they don’t backup what Ford has said. She wasn’t corroborated.”

And he was not exonerated. He could be exonerated if they said that they were in Canada or Mars and that the calendar supported it. Instead the calendar supports her point. The gathering she mentioned is highly probable on July 1st 1982. Timmy’s house should be easily found. The boy she mentioned were present.

————————

“Speaking of claims with evidence,…”

You really believe that there is only one person with my name in Canada. I would like to be the multimillionaire that lives in British Columbia but I’m not either.

To be guilty you have to be in criminal court. In civil court it is preponderance of evidence. And finally congress is neither.

“Judge Kavanaugh is being mistreated publicly. Reason?”

Because he was an asshole in high school and got away with it until the karma came around.

There are 7 other judges on the SCOTUS that have never been accuse of anything similar. Including Gorsuch.

Mistreated was Merrit Garland which would have been put on the court even if he had been filibustered. Never ever got a hearings or a vote. And Reps claimed a rule that never existed to begin with. Kenedy’s the Judge that opened a place to Kavanaugh’s nomination was nominated in the last year of a second term president.

Joy do you feel that someone who has been caught lying on multiple occasions should be elevated to the highest court. This is on himself.

“What did he do that is so terrible? In one sentence, if you can.”

He attempted to rape a 15 year old girl, that he failed doesn’t reduced the crime or what happened.

He said he never attended the kind of gathering Ford describe. His own calendar prove otherwise.

He claimed that when he drank he was of legal age. The legal drinking age was 20 not 18. And at the event he was 17.

He lied about the meaning of the expression in his yearbook. If the expression were meaningless, then why lie about it.

I’ve been assuming you know the difference between proof and conjecture. Obviously you don’t.

An urban dictionary definition proves nothing. Using it is conjecturing that Kavanaugh meant the same at the time the yearbook wasn’t written. Short of reading his mind, you can’t know that. The dictionary definition is not proof of anything. You have to show he meant the words the way you want them to mean. You haven’t done that.

You can’t hunt for events like parties attended or meetings for drinks to corroborate Ford. If you do then you are shoehorning them into your theory which is, in a nutshell, that Kavanaugh did what Ford has claimed. You first need to show that her testimony is verifiable. Since she gave next to nothing that can be verified, you can’t do that. When it comes to the date, she named the whole damn summer! I’ll bet you can find lots of parties and drinking engagements during that time. But you still can’t point to any specific one and claim that’s the one Ford meant. Doing that is like predicting an earthquake sometime in the next decade and, when one happens within 1000 miles, claim you predicted correctly. OTOH, you do seem to think this way.

You keep using non sequiturs like they’ll be soon going out of style. A recent example: Not wanting to send someone to jail doesn’t mean you want him on the Supreme Court. in response to Goes to [Ford’s] credibility is just priceless. I’ll bet you have no idea why your response is s o silly.

BTW: the media blather about credibility is wrong. Ford can’t be credible just because she seems to believe herself what she claims — or shouldn’t be. For her to be credible, most of what she has told needs verification. Given the lack of verifiable details in her testimony, that won’t happen. The one thing she gave which IS verifiable are the names of people present. They have all subsequently denied it. There is nothing remaining.

It’s been fun watching you tie yourself into knots. However, now I’m beginning to feel guilty for enjoying it. It’s probably not your fault that your reasoning is so poor. It’s possibly the reason why your posts are in lockstep with Lefty talking points. When they start saying X then so does Sylvain! He never brings up X until they do. Always following; never in the vanguard. Anyway, instead of being fun, it’s turned rather sad. Pathetic, even.

—

I am curious though. Why DID you kill that guy? You didn’t like his politics? You’ve made violent posts here so it’s not hard to imagine what you would do to someone within arm’s reach. Did he use the wrong pronoun? Perhaps he expressed dismay at Muslim terrorism? Maybe he liked Trump? Quit your lying and tell us.

“Using it is conjecturing that Kavanaugh meant the same at the time the yearbook wasn’t ”

Funny that you don’t mention that his classmate disagree on what it meant.

“You can’t hunt for events like parties attended or meetings for drinks to corroborate Ford. If you do then you are shoehorning them into your theory which is, in a nutshell, that Kavanaugh did what Ford ”

Except that Kavanaugh’s own calendar shows a gathering that includes the people that she said were there, and which he said he never attended such gatherings. Another one of his lies.

This is a he says she says case. Until know only what she said has some sense of corroboration. While he told many lies. If it was a judge nominated by Obama he would already have been executed.

You mean like when Jeanine Pirro talks of hypnosis and then you start mentioning it.
It was brought up during Thursday’s spectacle and was also mentioned in the WaPo who had access to the therapy notes. You OTOH, never mention anything until it becomes a Lefty talking point then you link to some of them. You’ve done this repeatedly in the past. FWIW: I never watch Pirro; I can’t stand her whiny voice. I had no idea that she mentioned it. In any case, the effect of hypnosis on memory is well documented. Studies have shown that many memories “recovered” during hypnosis are planted albeit perhaps unintentionally.

Oh, heck. This is too much fun to pass up.

There are 7 other judges on the SCOTUS that have never been accuse of anything similar. Including Gorsuch.

Well, that settles it then — he must be guilty and deserves to be treated as such.

Using the same logic, no one else here except you has been accused of murder. So you must be guilty and deserve to be treated accordingly.

”A man is innocent until proven guilty.”
To be guilty you have to be in criminal court.

So wait! This wasn’t in criminal court. Are you saying Kavanaugh therefore is innocent and NOT guilty of attempted rape? I would have never guessed you believed that given the above posts.

”I had no idea that she mentioned it. In any case, the effect of hypnosis on memory is well documented.”

Strange all I find are mention of what Jeanine Pirro said. And mention of paper that Ford wrote on hypnosis for treating depression.

Point out where it is said that she was hypnotized.

When there are idea from someone or site I mention where it comes from. I don’t claim ideas that are not mine; many things are just common sense.

OTOH you didn’t come by the idea of how she got to the gathering has nothing to do with happen there. There are a lot of possibilities and none matters to what happen.

Is there a possibility that the gathering Ford is talking about happen?

According to Kavanaugh’s calendar, Yes.

Were the people she mentioned there?

According to Kavanaugh’s calendar, Yes.

Could a sexual assault happen, it is a possibility that his not so far fetch.

Since it is neither a case of criminal court, or civil court, no one will go to jail for rape but maybe some could go for perjury.

The possibility that it happened and that the fact that he lied numerous time under oath certainly means that he has no place on SCOTUS, it is not like there are no other conservative judge to do the job.

The supreme court was a full year a 8 members for 15 months. For sure, they can be 8 for a few month more, to give the time to do a proper investigation. But Reps don’t want a proper investigation. Even before the hearing they had decided to vote the following day, without interviewing one of the person alleged to be present. A letter doesn’t give anyone the chance to ask question back, or see their demeanor.

Reps can blame Dems all they want but Ford wrote and sent the letter. she then accepted to testify to a circus that were entirely the responsibility of the Reps. They even fired the attorney they had hid behind as soon as she asked valid question to Kavanaugh.

“So wait! This wasn’t in criminal court. Are you saying Kavanaugh therefore is innocent and NOT guilty of attempted rape? I would have never guessed you believed that given the above posts.”

And of course you haven’t made up your mind that he is innocent.

Not surprising since some people here believe Flynn was extorted to plead guilty.

Strange all I find are mention of what Jeanine Pirro said.
You don’t seem to understand how Google works. All of those search results are pointing to rebuttals made by left-leaning sources. Like I said, I don’t watch her. About the only time I see her is at the tail end of her show which precedes the Greg Gutfeld Show (which I record) and she is usually saying goodnight; thanks for stopping by; see you next week; here’s Greg. What I find odd is that all of those lefty places felt the need to rebut Pirro. Wonder why. Was she on to something? Adweek had her at no.1 for the 9pm time slot. Was that it?

When there are idea from someone or site I mention where it comes from. I don’t claim ideas that are not mine
Sure you do! Actually, you don’t attribute unless you think the links are doing that. Otherwise, you seem to be saying you come up with an argument on your own then scour the internet for support. Why would you do that? It looks more like you come across points that you find agreeable then you parrot and link them.

—

You have the whole idea here upside down. We need to verify her claim(s) before proceeding to hearing a defense. The strange format used Thursday didn’t help in this regard. I also note that one of the demands for her to appear at all was that Kavanaugh should defend himself FIRST before hearing her claims! Even her lawyers must think her testimony is weak to demand that. Imagine: someone accuses you of harm years ago then demands you prove you didn’t before any specifics are produced. Reeks of the Inquisition and Salem witch trails.

1- ”witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them”

Which witness refuted her allegation?

2- “Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.”

“While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the time frame to a particular season and particular year.
(this is from Mitchell report page 2)

The Following is from the hearing:

“Later in your interview with The Washington Post, you were more specific. You believed it occurred in the summer of 1982 and you said at the end of your sophomore year.”

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: You said the same thing I believe in your prepared statement.

How were you able to narrow down the time frame?

FORD: I can’t give the exact date. And I would like to be more helpful about the date, and if I knew when Mark Judge worked at the Potomac Safeway, then I would be able to be more helpful in that way.

So I’m just using memories of when I got my driver’s license. I was 15 at the time. And I — I did not drive home from that party or to that party, and once I did have my driver’s license, I liked to drive myself.

MITCHELL: I’d assume the legal driving age was 16.

FORD: Yes.”

She was 15 at the time of the event. She’s born on November 28,1966. So she was 15 in the summer of 1982, at the end of her sophomore years. It is not that hard to determined when it happened. And an investigation would have helped.

FBI investigation which is now ongoing, and which you claim they couldn’t do.
No. I said further investigation was pointless because the only details to investigate would be the witlessness who have already testified in writing under risk of perjury. What they said won’t change. Nothing new will be learned.

Which witness refuted her allegation?
All if the ones she claimed were present. Haven’t you been keeping up?

“Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the time frame to a particular season and particular year.”She was 15 at the time of the event. She’s born on November 28,1966. So she was 15 in the summer of 1982, at the end of her sophomore years.
She originally said it was sometime in the mid-80’s. Now is saying “the summer of 1982”. It took how long for her to get to that? Months? And this was supposedly “burned into” her memory? Why couldn’t she work it out before? Why does she remember it now? She hasn’t explained that. Her account changed — a red flag. She is polishing her testimony; filling in details. Ever see SNL’s liar skits? It was “the summer of 1982”. Yeah! Yeah! That’s it! I remember now!

I can’t give the exact date. And I would like to be more helpful about the date, and if I knew when Mark Judge worked at the Potomac Safeway, then I would be able to be more helpful in that way.
So then which is it? When she got her driver’s license or when Judge worked at Safeway? How would knowing when Judge worked at Safeway help? Presumably, he worked for more than one day. More likely a whole summer and maybe more. If she can work it out from getting her license then how would knowing Judge’s time of employment help narrow it more? She isn’t making sense and appears she really doesn’t know when any of this supposedly occurred.

It is not that hard to determined when it happened. And an investigation would have helped.
Yes it is hard. Besides you meant “determined when it COULD HAVE happened.” Any investigation is supposed to be corroborating her testimony which has no real details. If the Democrats wanted a more thorough investigation (assuming there would have been enough detail given) they could have brought up the accusation when it was received instead of waiting until voting time. The call for investigation is a delay tactic and nothing more.

What? YOU think YOU are going to be able to impeach a seasoned prosecutor’s report? YOU who continually produces non sequiturs? I doubt you thought these up yourself. They must be talking points you’ve stumbled across and not very good ones.

“Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.”
Which means she isn’t sure. Supposedly “burned into” her memory but somehow forgotten? Really? The burn must have been superficial.

I’m out of time now but the report doesn’t look good at the moment.
I’m sure more talking points will surface for you to parrot. It will just take time.

The prosecutor has said Ford doesn’t present a good case — in fact, a rather poor one.

In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

”All if the ones she claimed were present. Haven’t you been keeping up?”

Actually none. Saying you doesn’t remember something isn’t the same as saying it never happened.

”It took how long for her to get to that?”

Maybe she should have ask her that question. Only dishonest people would see a problem here.

When did your burnt in you memory accident happen?

”When she got her driver’s license or when Judge worked at Safeway?”

She Stated that she met Judge 6 to 8 week after the event. Judge states in is book that he worked in a grocery for a few weeks in the summer before senior to help pay for football camp. Which is summer 1982. The 6 to 8 weeks later, mentioned by Ford does fit with the July 1 entry in the calendar.

1) none of the people that have the name written on the calendar says they recall the gathering. or whoever was present.
2) Ford who never saw Kavanaugh’s calendar said that she was assaulted by him, without recalling the date.
3) She said she couldn’t drive to or from the party because she didn’t have her driver’s license. When she got it she drove herself.
4) She said that it happened at the end of her sophomore year (which is 1982). And she says that she met Judge at a Safeway 6 to 8 later (which is corroborated by Mark Judge book). This timeline fit perfectly with Kavanaugh’s calendar entry of July 1, 1982.
5) If no one remembers the gathering because for them nothing extraordinary happened, OTOH, she does remember 36 years later that this gathering happened and that she got sexually assaulted.

Once she’s interrogated again by the FBI, maybe she’ll that this could’t be the date it happened. If the FBI find Timmy’s house, maybe it has no stairs and the July 1, cannot be the date. Or maybe they can bring her to Timmy’s house and see if she recognizes the house.

But if it all fit then, the house, the date, recalling that such a gathering happened, that 2 boys who were really drunk don’t remember because of the alcohol, or don’t want to (of course if Kavanaugh’s remember it, he won’t say). The time that elapse and the fact that her spotty memory could fit with physical evidence like Mark Judge books and Kavanaugh calendar.

Hmmm. You seem to be saying Mitchell is a liar. Really?
And I see you are parroting talking points.

You also seem to be bringing up things not in Ford’s accounts. Her accounts are inconsistent and lacks verifiable facts. The dates she mentioned changed from Jul 6 to Sep 16 (a stretch of 72 days characterized as sudden) and she told her therapist it happened during her late teems yet in her most recent accounts when she was 15. She didn’t (and probably can’t) explain why she kept changing them.

• In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
• In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
• Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
• A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
• While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year.

With the last point you tried to parse “how” to mean only her reasoning in arriving at the summer of 1982 but “how” can also be short for “how did it happen?”. It’s clear from the PDF, Mitchell meant the latter — effectively: why were your able to narrow it over a ten week period; what caused you to suddenly remember differently; why couldn’t you remember the year ten weeks ago?

There are other discrepancies and inconsistencies. They are all listed in the PDF in nine major sections stretching to five pages. There’s no point in reposting them here. Ford’s account is highly questionable.

“You also seem to be bringing up things not in Ford’s accounts. Her accounts are inconsistent and lacks verifiable facts. The dates she mentioned changed from Jul 6 to Sep 16 (a stretch of 72 days characterized as sudden) and she told her therapist it happened during her late teems yet in her most recent accounts when she was 15. She didn’t (and probably can’t) explain why she kept changing them.”

She explain how she came to it in the hearing. She couldn’t drive because she wasn’t old enough to. If she had had had her licence she would have driven herself which is what she usually did.

The question Mitchell didn’t ask is: how old was she when she got assaulted? this is something she should have remembered easily. There are many events that I first remembered vaguely to which I would give in the ball park time period answers. It doesn’t mean that by thinking about it more I couldn’t narrow the answers.

For example: in the 80’s I had parking tickets. I was 16 in 1984 and graduated in 1986 (we don’t have I school here but cegep which lead to University). I remember driving at two different school parties 2 different with 2 different cars, 1 a yellow rabbit form the 1970s, and the other a blue Rabbit from 1980. I had the ticket with the blue rabbit. The party to which I drove the yellow rabbit was in winter. While when I drove the blue rabbit their was no snow. I drove the yellow rabbit until my brother totaled it. So for sure I didn’t drive the blue rabbit within a year after I got my license or about. I know that it wasn’t very cold outside. So I got this ticket during the school year. So now I’m not sure if it was between October to November or around April-May most likely it would have been a party at the school. For sure, I did not participate to anything leading to prom so spring 1986 is out. it leaves us, the fall of 1985. Halloween is a good reason to have a party, though it would not have been on October 31st. We had our school’s party on Fridays. The 31st was a Thursday. It leaves October 25 or November 1 has possible date.

Mitchell asked her:

”How were you able to narrow down the timeframe?”

“So I’m just using memories of when I got my driver’s license. I was 15 at the time. And I — I did not drive home from that party or to that party, and once I did have my driver’s license, I liked to drive myself.”

She explain how she came to it in the hearing. She couldn’t drive because she wasn’t old enough to. If she had had had her licence she would have driven herself which is what she usually did

Which doesn’t explain why she gave four different times during a ten week period (Jul 6 to Sep 16) finally settling on “summer 1982”. This is what is Mitchell finds disconcerting and, from her report, was trying to get answered. So what if the question was ambiguous? The fact that she changed the time at all raises a red flag. Having done so four times raises it even more.

Also

• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.

Another red flag.

Probably why she wanted to hide the therapy notes. If they corroborated her testimony you can bet they would have been provided. Her excuse for not doing so (privacy) is absurd since obviously the Post had them. The Post said she provided the notes to them. So much for “privacy”. The committee didn’t press her for the notes in their ridiculous bending over backwards to accommodate her. They should never have done that.

These discrepancies are inconsequential at the moment that the gathering she describes is found in the calendar of Brett Kavanaugh.

You would have a point if there were no way to identify when the event happened or if the event ever happened. This is not the case. 1) The mention of mid-1980s, and late teens are during therapy session. It was within a conversation where precision was not required. 2) The mention in her later to Feinstein of “early 1980s” doesn’t disqualify ”summer of 1982” which can be considered early 1980s.

Whatever the timeline she said. The fact is that a gathering like the one she said happened, happened. The proof is in Kavanaugh’s own calendar.

Kavanaugh’s stated that he never went to a gathering like the one Ford described. He lied and the proof is in his calendar. How often those gathering did happened. Looking through his calendar online shows no other such gathering that include the name that Ford said were present.

If there was no calendar, then yes the accusation wouldn’t mean anything, except now there is physical corroborating evidence that the gathering Ford described did happen.

Now, thanks to the calendar, we know where the gathering happened.

And thanks to the internet someone seems to have found Timmy’s house (Tim Gaudette).

You realize that your links mistakes not remembering and denying. (And find them very similar to your talking points.

They write:

“…and even the friend she says was at the party in question has denied being there or knowing Kavanaugh at all.”

While Leland Ingram Keyser attorney said:

“Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford’s account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford’s account,” Keyser’s attorney, Howard Walsh, wrote in the letter, which was sent to the committee overnight Friday. “However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”

We need to know from Ford now, 1) could this be the date of the event and 2) if this is the house she remembers.

Both their parents were members of the same country club.

Her discrepancies in for the timeline is not important once the date of the events are discovered. It was very clear for her that it had always happened 6 to 8 weeks prior of seeing Mark Judge at the Safeway. Also these are therapists notes which the therapists just put a ballpark time stamps, and not the exact words Ford said.

The physical evidence is mounting:

1) The July 1st entry in the calendar which include the people she mentioned.
2) Mark Judge books which states when he was working for a grocery (Safeway) mentioned by Ford
3) The house of Kavanaugh’s friends Timmy ( Tim Gaudette) he lived in, in 1982, which fit the descriptions made by Ford.
4) Numerous friends of Kavanaugh, describe him has a heavy drinker and belligerent when drunk.
5) Kavanaugh’s refusal to answer question at the hearing.
6) Kavanaugh was unable to describe how the Devil’s Triangle drinking game was played. A description that does not match the meaning of the expression at the time. (It could also describe the sexual assaults).

Did I mention the fading interest in questioning if Kavanaugh’s committed a sexual assault?
Did I mention the newest talking points (Kavanaugh lied etc.)?
You are never original.

(*yawn*) I presume when the latest FBI investigation closes today; finds nothing to add; and the Lefties decry it as insufficient more earnestly than they do now then so will you. You are so predictable. Can’t wait.

” I presume when the latest FBI investigation closes today; finds nothing to add; and the Lefties decry it as insufficient more earnestly than they do now then so will you. You are so predictable. Can’t wait.”

Is there an investigation?

FBI are refusing to take witness account (on the order of the White House. They didn’t interrogate Ford since last Thursday. They did meet Tim Gaudette. Didn’t meet with any of the 20 witnesses Ramirez mentioned to them.

So what the interest is lessened, doesn’t mean the sexual assault isn’t real. There are many reasons to reject this nominee.

Lie about stolen Democrat information for nominating judges.

Lie about is participation in Torture discussion in Bush White House.

Lie last Thursday about what he wrote in his yearbook.

Lie about when he learned of the Ramirez allegation

Lie about is drinking

If this guy was a Democrat, Republican would have thrown him in jail by now. Heck you wanted to throw Clinton in jail because of freaking inconsequential emails. And investigated her for years. And now you complain for a week.

“To be guilty you have to be in criminal court. In civil court it is preponderance of evidence. And finally congress is neither.”
No, the crime must be established prior to the case being accepted for prosecution.

In a case of personal assault, even one that happens today or yesterday, evidence can be absent with or without veracity of the claim. There are murder cases that go nowhere with more evidence.

The very fact that this scenario is different, means that maximum advantage can be taken of the situation ‘out of court’, off the duff, at the expense of the reputation of a man who is, so I learn, of a certain political persuasion.

The paragraph starting ‘mistreated…’ I didn’t fully understand.

“Joy do you feel that someone who has been caught lying on multiple occasions should be elevated to the highest court. This is on himself.”
I don’t even feel it, I think it! However the case is about attempted rape isn’t it? Or some kind of ‘arshol’itudinal thing.
Which? Apparently, it isn’t lying that’s upsetting you. I don’t think it’s been established that he’s lying.
“He attempted to rape a 15 year old girl,”
So you are now claiming that something else is the case.
These kinds of situation are often seen very differently by the public, depending upon the situation. WHATEVER the media tries to project. Whatever men and women who have never been on the receiving end, say. A fifteen year old who is dressed provocatively, in heavy make-up, or one who happens to look older than her years, who is approached by a man who doesn’t know her age, is hardly attempting rape. Neither is a seventeen year old making a move on a fifteen year old much to write home about, since there’s two years between them. Something that is normally handled by adults surrounding such a situation. Would you trust a seventeen year old boy at a party where there are girls who are only fifteen? We used to have a junior ‘disco’ and a senior ‘disco’ at our boarding school. Where the local lads were vetted by our scary head mistress for suitability! We were about twelve and a girl, who was very naughty, brought some of the boys upstairs to see us (we’d leant over the bannisters and dared them to come upstairs). The lads came into our dormitory while we were supposed to be in bed. It was a big thrill at the time and the boys didn’t do or say anything they shouldn’t. The girl was in serious trouble, she was not allowed to come skiing and I’ll bet she’s still ashamed today. So, what was she doing there? It’s just teen aged stuff. I’m not sure a seventeen year old, unless he were very unusual, would be capable of rape.
…and so on and so on and thus the situation at hand must be examined by a criminal court with a jury. Rape is a crime. You seem to be dodging between the two courts and the two or three ‘crimes’. None of them proven.
There is a rule in civil cases that he who makes the claim bears the burden of proof.
…
‘… that he failed doesn’t reduced the crime or what happened.”
Which is why I said your are convicting him before the fact. You are jumping the gun, Queen of hearts style.
The word ‘rape’ is only used because the person is fifteen. The situation may be rather excusable given all kinds of scenarios. In a criminal court, all these things are explored. Yet that level of scrutiny required in a criminal court is not being applied to Ford by the politically biased inquisitors of Kavanaugh.
…
“He said he never attended the kind of gathering Ford describe. His own calendar prove otherwise.”
This calendar business seems a bit shaky. To say you don’t go to that kind of party is not something you need to check dates about. To say you’ve never been to a party is to say something different again.

“He claimed that when he drank he was of legal age. The legal drinking age was 20 not 18. And at the event he was 17.”
Is that the lie he told? Was he at the party? Is that established? Is that really it?
Are you saying that he drank under age and lied about that?
“e lied about the meaning of the expression in his yearbook. If the expression were meaningless, then why lie about it.”
Which legal age, for what?

Sylvain is only regurgitating talking points. He fervently believes all of them. The Left is apparently conceding loss with the sexual assault cases against Kavanaugh so now have moved on to lying and perjury and whatnot thus the new talking points. Sylvain is just following suit. He sees it as his duty apparently. Since faith doesn’t require much thinking, he doesn’t use it much. When confronted he spews out whatever is at hand. This is evidenced by his disjoint and confusing presentations and his lack of appropriate responses.

He tends toward the latest talking point but that doesn’t mean he won’t fall back to old ones — even if they aren’t germane. Note the “inconsequential email” comment. Even Comey said the emails on her server contained top secret and secret information (which is why the Democrats wanted him fired until Trump actually did — then the talking points went the other way). They are only “inconsequential” in Hillary’s mind. So she says although she tried to destroy all of them before the FBI got hold of them. The Left rushed to her defense anyway in an effort to nullify Trump. So does Sylvain of course.

He has done this repeatedly in the past on every subject from gun control to abortion to the St. Louis shooting of Lamar Smith to Trump. It’s kinda fun to keep poking him as he continually makes a fool of himself with his disconnected nonsense. Reasoning with him is a waste of time, though.

From what I understood of the story, The accuser said that she had a video which she never provided.

”A draft report obtained by the AP notes Monahan’s shifting rationale for refusing to produce the video footage, including that it was lost, was on a USB drive in storage and that it would be too embarrassing and traumatic to release it.

Ellingstad also wrote in her report that Monahan would not allow her to view the footage privately.

“An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred, particularly where the accusing party declines to produce supporting evidence that she herself asserts exists,” Ellingstad wrote. “She has thus repeatedly placed the existence of the video front and center to her allegations, but then has refused to disclose it.””

Blaisey-Ford said that the event happened 6-8 weeks before she met Judge at the Safeway.

Judge wrote that he worked for a grocery for a few weeks before football camp. Which according to Kavanaugh’s calendar started August 22nd. This put the party at the earliest on June 27th, and the latest July 11th. July 1st 1982, fit in this window.

Thanks to Kavanaugh’s calendar, we know that a gathering like she described, happened in the area she mentioned and that included the people she claim were there. She was 15, the gathering happened in a house of someone she didn’t know, and her description of fit the house where Tim Gaudette lived in 1982. The calendar mentioned that the gathering happened at Timmy’s (Tim Gaudette).

No one but Ford remember the gathering, which might include Kavanaugh. This means that for anyone but her the gathering wasn’t memorable. It was memorable for her because something traumatic happened. Traumatic enough that it inconvenienced her life in many ways, and enough that she needed therapy.

I believe Kavanaugh remember the event and that he immortalized it in is yearbook under the expression Devil’s Triangle. This is why in needed to lie about what the expression met during the hearing. If it had been a drinking game he would have been able to explain what was the game a lot better. Instead his explanation was limited to 3 glass put in triangle, and nothing else. What happened next?

“No, the crime must be established prior to the case being accepted for prosecution.”

For the prosecution to proceed only need that the prosecutor has enough evidence to win.

Rachel Mitchell based her decision only on her own interview of Ford, and on several source that are not her own and that Ford said were not exact. Which was why she testified.

No prosecutor of good name would make a decision to prosecute or not without a proper investigation. Yet this is what she did, without even mentioning the July 1st date (which was the moment the GOP fired her during the hearing. And the moment, Graham had is cry baby outburst.

”The very fact that this scenario is different, means that maximum advantage can be taken of the situation ‘out of court’, off the duff, at the expense of the reputation of a man who is, so I learn, of a certain political persuasion.”

So you are disqualifying Kavanaugh as a political operative. A Judge should not have political views, at least in public, and even less be members of conspiracy theories against a political party.

“I’m not sure a seventeen year old, unless he were very unusual, would be capable of rape.”

WTF!!!!!!!

I did a paper on the perception of rape in the 1700s-1800s. The sad thing is that very few of the argument against the victim have changed. There is also a hierarchy on who is believed, and who is not.

For over century no one could successfully convince a jury that a priest could have abuse a child or a women. We now know that these abused have left millions of victim world wide. Priest were considered having a higher sense of morality, while children and women are always amoral. Why now know that it was false.

In my paper, the reality showed that for a women to be believe she had to accuse a men of another race of about the same stature or lower. If a women accused a white man, the man had to be of a lower stature. At the bottom were prostitute who had no chance to be believed. Very little has changed. This is why powerful men a free to do whatever they want because they will be able to get away with it.

The #metoo had some win with Weinstein, Cosby, etc. But even the #metoo era men have had more success. If you think of Kevin Spacey, and we had two gay male celebrities brought down in matter of days. While many man who abuse women got away unscathed.

No Republican lost their job because of this. While the DA for NY had to resign, Al Franken resigned, And another Dems at to resign one of the longest member of the House or maybe Senate.

Simply explaining how the process goes, and how to reduce stress related it, is not coaching. This is very different than lying under oath.

“When asked under oath in the hearing whether she’d ever given any tips or advice to someone who was planning on taking a polygraph, Dr. Ford replied, ‘Never,'” Grassley continued. “This statement raises specific concerns about the reliability of her polygraph examination results.”

ABUSE ALLEGATION ‘UNSUBSTANTIATED’
The accuser said that she had a video which she never provided.
So?
She claimed she had proof but didn’t provide it. Hence, UNSUBSTANTIATED.
Ford claimed witlessness who didn’t corroborate her story. Hence, UNSUBSTANTIATED.
Different rules for different folk.

Ford changed the date of the incident to “summer of 1982” sometime between Aug 7 (the day of her lie detector test) and Sep 16 (the day of the Post report). According to Mitchell’s report: The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s
account and provides a timeline of activities. There are no details given in the report but presumably the SJC members would have that.

During that time in late Aug: Feinstein met with Kavanaugh one on one and Senator Feinstein’s staff asked Judge Kavanaugh numerous questions about confidential background information. There is a link to a paywalled article at Law360.com but probably doesn’t contain what transpired during the meeting.

On Sep 12: The Intercept reports that SJC Democrats have requested to view a ‘Kavanaugh-related document’ in the possession of Senator Feinstein.

Also on Sep 12: Ford’s attorney Debra Katz is seen leaving Capitol Hill shortly after the Intercept story was published.

Did Ford’s attorney have prior access to Kavanaugh’s testimony? Mitchell seems to imply she could have and that could have led to altering Ford’s account.

What caused Ford to narrow the date between Aug 7 and Sep 16?
We don’t know. It’s suspicious. She evaded the question. Lucky for her it was ambiguous.
What did Feinstein’s staff discover during his background questioning?
What did Mitchell mean by “The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account”?

Inspector Clouseau:
I said,
‘No, the crime must be established prior to the case being accepted for prosecution.’
You said,
“For the prosecution to proceed only need that the prosecutor has enough evidence to win.”
Precisely, and for that, you need evidence of sufficient heft to withstand cross examination AND to convince twelve good men and true. The minimum is that this evidence demonstrates that a crime was committed. It is a fact of life that such cases are hard to prove.
So I asked you what crime. You seem unable to make up your mind. You are bringing in other cases from the public eye to support your claim that somehow these people are guilty by default, because they are white? What a traitor to your own race, I assume you’re a white man? Wait until you are accused. It will be true by default. Especially if you enjoy writing papers on the matter! It’s a sign!

“So you are disqualifying Kavanaugh as a political operative”
It’s what you’re hoping will happen and is the only reason for your interest in the matter.
…
“…and even less be members of conspiracy theories against a political party.” You are the one who is indulging in conspiracy! Simply by spinning out Ford’s story into a Clouseau style investigation.
…
“I’m not sure a seventeen year old, unless he were very unusual, would be capable of rape.”
Seventeen year olds aren’t so desperate, for a start. I’ll leave it there, since you don’t appear to know the same kinds of seventeen year olds as me. You will and others will misconstrue almost anything that is said on the matter.
…
“I did a paper on the perception of rape in the 1700s-1800s.
What you claim is simply what is known throughout history. It;’s not hard to see why claims are inherently disbelieved without any anti female conspiracy. However, if you would like to make a difference, start with Islam.
“The sad thing is that very few of the argument against the victim have changed. “
Why would they? When some women DO make false claims? Normally they say that something consensual was not, after the fact. Then innocent women get accused of the same thing by creepy men with no moral compass. Yes this happens. It’s not your problem though to start saying any claim made must be true by default, which is the converse of your own position.

There is also a hierarchy on who is believed, and who is not.” Start with Sharia and the stinky muslim rapists.
The hierarchy is official! Women in England who wear ordinary clothes are called prostitutes and “fair game”, again, by men without a moral compass, or a brain, evidently.
This is no different from any other case. Physical assault, however, is harder to prove. As I stated before and you ignored it. In burglary, there is no difficulty proving it took place. Same for Murder. Witness testimony is always a factor in court evidence. Sometimes really bad witnesses enable a guilty party to escape, for example, the legal system is not perfect and never was.
…
“In my paper, the reality showed…”
that for a women to be believe she had to accuse a men of another race of about the same stature or lower. If a women accused a white man, the man had to be of a lower stature. At the bottom were prostitute who had no chance to be believed. Very little has changed. This is why powerful men a free to do whatever they want because they will be able to get away with it. See Sharia Law courts. You are speaking of date rape, in the main. Jimmy Saville even had a friend called ‘mic the pill’. Who used to ‘travel’ with him.

Sylvain, if you’re still reading,
When I said the converse to your own view I mean the flip side of attempting to believe eve claim that comes along. Obviously your view is clear enough. The consequences are that no man can ever be innocent. I had written something else and then edited it until it made no sense!

But, of course, none of that matters as Kavanaugh reputedly tossed ice in a bar brawl. Clearly a disqualifying act. And let’s not forget he defended himself — the cad. Oh, wait! The photo shows ten cups and not three. See? He WAS lying! (according to Sylvia anyway).

“Ford claimed witlessness who didn’t corroborate her story. Hence, UNSUBSTANTIATED.
Different rules for different folk.”

Yes, none of Ford witnesses remember that specific party that was not memorable to them. The difference is that there is physical evidence provided by the accused that such a gathering happened. Do you have a similar corroboration concerning the accuser of Keith Ellison, the answer is no. Ideally they would have a different candidate.

As much as you complain about her changing timeline. One thing has never changed is her claim that she saw Mark Judge later that summer at the Safeway. This gives us another physical, Mark Judge’s book, in which he stated that he worked in a groceries for a few weeks before the start of football camp, which we know started August 22nd, 1982, according to Kavanaugh’s calendar. The 6 to 8 weeks mentioned by Ford concerning meeting Judge at the Safeway fit with what can be found in Kavanaugh’s calendar and Judge books.

If the idiot hadn’t tried to outsmart everyone in assuming that the party/gathering happened on the week-end. And showing his calendar to prove how it was impossible for him to have been at such a party/gathering at any week-ends, in a sort of gotcha moment. But the idiot didn’t read is entire calendar, and didn’t see that the July 1st entry proposed such a gathering, that included the same people Ford mentioned has being present. This is physical proof that corroborate her testimony. Much better than human memory.

Another problem Ford had is that she couldn’t recall where the party happened. It is not suprising that a 15 year old wouldn’t remember where a gathering was even the day after she probably had no idea where the house was. But she is able to describe the house in many details. At this point, the calendar provide another unintentional corroboration of Ford’s claim. It states that it happened a Timmy’s.

Timmy’s is, Tim Gaudette. The house where he lived in 1982 has been found and you can see the inside and the address in the twitter link above. The house is located in the Bethesda area.

From her written statement:

”Early in the evening, I went up a very narrow set of stairs leading from the living room to a second floor to use the restroom. When I got to the top of the stairs, I was pushed from behind into a bedroom across from the bathroom. I couldn’t see who pushed me. Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them.”

This is the view from the bedroom of the bathroom up a narrow set of stairs:

If the gathering was not memorable to others present, it was for her. So, obviously she had something traumatic happening to her, that made her remember it.

Remove the physical evidence that do corroborate her testimony and yes its all about nothing, but thanks to Kavanaugh short sighting we now have a lot of it.

About Devils triangle: Why did it take a full week to have an explanation of the rule, and why wasn’t Kavanaugh able to describe the rule last week if he knew of it.

It looks like 2 things were very important to Kavanugh “defense”, 1) that he didn’t drink that much, and 2) that nothing looked sexual.

The Renate Alumni: Very possible that nothing happened with her. Other than he only needed to make an occasion to make the others believe he did.

The Devils triangle: very important that it doesn’t match the sexual nature of the expression, since it probably describe the attempted rape. Are there other mention of the devil triangle by any other classmate of Kavanaugh. If he his the only one mentioning it in the yearbook, the likely hood that it was drinking game is none existent. Reading the comment classmate left in the yearbook would be very important.

The drinking part is busted. He was a heavy drinker according to his classmate, roommate and himself.

He claim that he was a virgin then. Possible, numerous teenagers boast falsely about being sexually active in high school. But being a virgin doesn’t mean you did not try having or boasted to have been sexually active.

With the physical evidence that we have, it makes it very likely that Ford testimony was truthful. It is also possible that for Kavanaugh and judge it was just something they saw has a game or joke, while for her it was one of the most traumatic event of her life.

I don’t believe every accusation made by women. I look at it case by case.

For me it is not the social status that brings morality to a person. Being a white, church going, altar boy, straight “A” student, Yale educated and a judge doesn’t make you a better person than anyone else. This is the defense he used. His judicial tantrum he had on the appeal court trying to prevent a teenage girl to abort a pregnancy caused by a rape, demonstrate a lot about how much he doesn’t care for others.

If you’re planning on a law career, I’d advise sticking to your day job (driving instructor is it?). You suck at law. It’s unfortunate you attended a school that passes out participation trophies instead of grades. It’s given you a false sense your expetise.

The Supplemental Background Investigation confirms what the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded after its investigation: there is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez

Of course, the Democrats are going to use this as proof that the FBI has been colluding with the WH.

If he get to SCOTUS, it will take long for him to get impeach.
Forever would be my guess but keep making noises like that. It will help in the upcoming elections. It’s the latest talking point. The Democrats from the start were against his appointment and have shown how dirty they can play. They couldn’t find anything in his career and had to go back to his high school years in their attempts to block his appointment. This hasn’t been lost on the voters and will be a big issue come November. If the Democrats have any brains at all they should keep quiet about this until after the elections. I’m convinced it’s their only chance.

The interviewed 9 people and had to ask for permission to interview other which was denied by the WH. After the election, and once the Dems will have taken the House, maybe even the Senate. A few thing will come to light and once it will have been proven that Kavanaugh lied under oath; his removal will come swiftly.

“As of October 2017, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent.”

The number of people identifying as Republican is lowering as fast as Trump idiocies.

I won my case against unemployment insurance. At the I becam the 4th Canadian to receive unemployment insurance while studying full time.

I won my case against workers compensation. Became the first person in Quebec to receive the PTSD diagnosis and receive workers compensation partial indemnities for life.

I won my civil case against an employer. Well I was winning but the employer chose to settle. Giving about 10k for illegal firing.

Helped a friend won her case against a landlord throwing her out.

Helped a friend prevent is house being seized for unpaid taxes. Turned out he was preyed on by the local city council and bank, which knew the house was going to be expropriated to build a road. Thanks to me he was able to pay back is owed taxes to the city. They then bought his house for twice its value in expropriation.

Helped my parents win their case against fraudulent insurance.

Why do I win my case? Because I’m on the right side of the and know how to mount a proof.

We’ll see what happened on November 6. But the action of the GOP sure angered a lot of women. You should remember what happened in 1992. This year their are a lot of women that one primaries

In 2016, Clinton got over 3,000,000 more vote than Trump. The only way Republican know how to win is by cheating in making sure that people can’t vote, and by gerrymandering district in which Republican can be elected by a small number of voter and having Democrat concentrated in fewer districts.

Since Trump was elected, Democrat erase double digit lead in almost every election.

The higher the turnout the biggest the fall the Republican will suffer. Kavanaugh gives a lot of people a reason to vote.

Helped a friend won her case against a landlord throwing her out.Helped my parents win their case against fraudulent insurance.Why do I win my case? Because I’m on the right side of the and know how to mount a proof.
Isn’t a law license required in Canada before you can practice law there?
I presume you can represent yourself but not others.
You can’t claim to win a game you aren’t permitted to play.
In any case (pun intended), yeah, sure, whatever you say.

In 2016, Clinton got over 3,000,000 more vote than Trump. The only way Republican know how to win is by cheating
Last year, My old college football team lost their final playoff game. They had more yards gained than the opposing team. You are saying they should have been declared the victors because the other team cheated when they got more touchdowns? Hmmm ….

A U.S. President is not chosen by popular vote. Been that way since 1787. Trump won using that very system but you call it cheating. You claim to be a top-notch lawyer (never lost and all that) yet can’t comprehend a four page document. Like I said, you suck at law.

No, I can’t represent them but I did build their cases de they and they only had to follow my plan. Which they did and won.

“A U.S. President is not chosen by popular vote.”

I know that, and this is why this is so ridiculous.

There are at least 5 states (Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota), that are mostly solid red that have a population of under 1 millions, which gives Republican at least 8 or 9 out of 10 snators. And gives Republican 15 electoral votes (2,5 votes per 1 million people) with less than 6 million vote. Meanwhile California with 39 millions has 55 electoral vote (1,4 vote by 1 millions people).

This gives a small minority of American a lot more power than a great majority.

[The Electoral College] gives a small minority of American a lot more power than a great majority.

Yes. Deliberately so.

If you really are studying law, you would know why the Electoral College was implemented. But you apparently don’t which brings into question the veracity of your claims.

The Electoral College was specifically designed to prevent what would have happened 2016 where dense population centers would dictate the result of the election giving no voice at all to other, lesser populated regions. Each state now has a more balanced say in the outcome. The president is chosen by the states and only indirectly by the people. The founders of this country did NOT want the president chosen by popular vote. And — rightly so — they didn’t give any weight at all to the opinions of Canadians.

Perhaps you are merely a rather poor student or, at the very least, have had only minimal — maybe highly biased — exposure. I guess we shouldn’t have higher expectations of an alumnus of T-Ball U. Try studying The Federalist Papers for starters. Maybe then you will begin to understand though frankly, with you, that is an apparently far-distant hope.

Regardless, Hillary didn’t give a rat’s behind about what the people in swing states — let alone in places like Wyoming — wanted or she would have more actively campaigned them. She should have known better. Her whining (and hence the Left’s whining) about the Electoral College is smokescreen attempting to mask extreme stupidity. The Left’s surprise at learning how the president it chosen is more evidence we are better off without them in charge. Their arrogance is unbelievable.